You are not logged in.

Infrastructure rules?

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

Earl822

King of the Nords

Posts: 1,351

  • Send private message

21

Wednesday, August 2nd 2006, 9:48am

Well, I better come up with an figure for Nordmark.

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

  • Send private message

22

Wednesday, August 2nd 2006, 10:39am

The problem is that the size of your civilan economy has no relationship to the population. What people seem to want is to spend a greater proportion of GDP on construction and defense. A country with higher GDP is going to be able to do this more readily than a country with lower GDP but lots of people.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

  • Send private message

23

Wednesday, August 2nd 2006, 11:51am

I agree with RA on this one: economic wealth is not directly linked to population (see Russia/Soviet Union for example).

Then there is the problem how to realistically define population for non-historical powers. No rule change like can be allowed to shift the balance of power. Should the math behind our calculations be changed the relative and total economic power of country x still has to be y times larger than country z if that was the case too before any rule was modified. It´s a matter of status quo (no, not the rock band!).

Especially the last point is why I´m not font of changing our rules that much during a running SIM. But that´s probably just me.

AdmKuznetsov

Sage

Posts: 2,918

  • Send private message

24

Wednesday, August 2nd 2006, 12:49pm

Quoted

Our most populous nations, India and China, fall within this last range - effectively, it's liking providing 1.6 additional factories for these nations


And to Russia... And with Russia soon to have 33 factories... And if you look at the US, France and Great Britain with their empires, this would benefit them quite a lot. I think this will unbalance the game.

Which is why I wouldn't favor this change for countries with lots of factories. What this rule should represent is the ability of developing countries to accomplish important national projects by mobilizing their labor force. At some point in the industrialization process, this just isn't done any more, because capital replaces labor as "the way things get done". So if we include a rule like this, it shouldn't apply for countries with more than, say, 10-12 factories.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

  • Send private message

25

Wednesday, August 2nd 2006, 1:04pm

I think such a change of rules has to go hand in hand with other modifications like rules for maintenance.

See, the powers with huge industrial potential also have the largest fleets. Once we have a useful, easy to handle system to deal with required maintenance on a much larger scale than we do so far the problem of scale is obsolete. Larger fleets then require a large part of the industrial potential to be devoted to maintenance. Such a rule would bring the balance necessary.

So while I still think anything population based is not useful right now I´d agree to a rule that one can divide a 10pts-factory into two 5pts-factories. This will allow smaller powers more flexibility while I cannot see how it affects larger powers in the same scale.

Commodore Green

The Irish Legend

Posts: 3,266

  • Send private message

26

Wednesday, August 2nd 2006, 10:50pm

I have to agree with RA and Hoo on the population versus economy thing.

Take Denmark (11 factories), according to the population website, in 1930 had approx 3.5 million citizens.

Now take Siam (1 factory), according to the same website, in 1930 had approx. 12.5 million citizens.

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

  • Send private message

27

Wednesday, August 2nd 2006, 11:46pm

Maintenance will not equalize things; maintenance will cost the same for a small power as a big power, and the big power has more resources to draw upon. In the maintenance thread Roger wrote (which I bumped), you'll find that the shortfalls in the American and Indian fleet maintenance are fairly proportional to factories (5800 to 1500, and 26 to 11.

What I understand historically is that the industrialized nations' growth flattens out and slows to a very low rate, while the unindustrialized nations start to become industrialized, and their growth rates shoot up. Consider the growth rate of any European economy versus any Asian economy as examples.

This is contrary to what we see in Wesworld, where the industrialized nations can continue to grow at the highest rates, while unindustrialized nations continue to grow at low rates. In the long term, we might as well as get British passports, because it is impossible to catch up with the rate of British growth.

So yes, what we are talking about would change the balance of power over time - which is fine, because historically, the balance of power does change over time.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

  • Send private message

28

Thursday, August 3rd 2006, 1:21pm

So what we need is a rule that makes additional factories more and more expensive to gain. It should cost a country more to gain the 21th factory than the 11th. Is that what you meant, Doc?

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

  • Send private message

29

Thursday, August 3rd 2006, 2:21pm

It wasn't what I meant, but it's not a bad idea.

Ubiwan

Unregistered

30

Thursday, August 3rd 2006, 3:04pm

I find it is an outstanding idea. This makes it for small nations simple to build factories . Whereas countries with many factories will have it more with difficulty to build a further. Thus each further factory would have to become ever more expensive.
We need a regulation those the small nations help to grow and at the same time prevented that the large nations build ever further factories.

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

  • Send private message

31

Thursday, August 3rd 2006, 4:10pm

So here's one option: decrease the cost of the first few factories, increase the cost of the later factories:

Factories 1-5 cost 5 IP
Factories 6-10 cost 7.5 IP
Factories 11-15 cost the original 10 IP
Factories 16-20 cost 12.5 IP
Factories 21-30 cost 15 IP
Factories 31-40 cost 17.5 IP
Factories 41+ cost 20 IP

-This would apply to all factories commenced in Q1/32 and onward; factories started prior to 1932 would be the flat 10 IP.

-We would not need the "Half Factory" provisions I raised earlier.

-I reckon that a puppet/client/satellite state must be considered part of the puppetmaster's total, otherwise we'll find a new colonial race on as players seek new puppets to build up. So what is a client state? If a player controls two or more states, and there is a demonstrated link in their foreign policies, and there is a free-flow of factory output between the states, all but the largest state are puppets.

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

  • Send private message

32

Thursday, August 3rd 2006, 4:20pm

That would work pretty well, helping the smaller states to set up factories and slowing the growth of the currently existing powers without stopping them from growing if they want to do so.

Ubiwan

Unregistered

33

Thursday, August 3rd 2006, 4:39pm

Looks very good !

BUT

In my opinion the increase should be still steeper. Particularly starting from the 20. Factory .

Approximately so
Factories 1-5 cost 5 IP
Factories 6-10 cost 7.5 IP
Factories 11-15 cost the original 10 IP
Factories 16-20 cost 12.5 IP
Factories 21-30 cost 17.5 IP
Factories 31-40 cost 25 IP
Factories 41-45 cost 35 IP
Factories 45+ cost 50 IP

I know, it is a dreadful increase, but I do not think a country need really more than 20 or 30 factories. Nontheless it is in principle possible to built further factories

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

  • Send private message

34

Thursday, August 3rd 2006, 5:43pm

Guess that plan will put a break on GB factory construction. :-)

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

  • Send private message

35

Thursday, August 3rd 2006, 5:53pm

Quoted



Guess that plan will put a break on GB factory construction. :-)


But then they'll build warships instead.

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

  • Send private message

36

Thursday, August 3rd 2006, 5:56pm

Until they hit their treaty limits.

ShinRa_Inc

Mad Scientist at Work

Posts: 4,307

  • Send private message

37

Thursday, August 3rd 2006, 7:07pm

at which point the treaty will conveniently collapse, I'm sure. :P

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

  • Send private message

38

Thursday, August 3rd 2006, 7:24pm

So I guess Canada will help GB with that convenient collapse of the CT.

Hood

Ugly Aircraft, Inc

Posts: 8,155

  • Send private message

39

Thursday, August 3rd 2006, 9:59pm

This scheme seems a good idea to help the little nations develop quicker and cheaper while stopping the big powers from becoming too powerful. It equalises things nicely and more like real-world economics.

ShinRa_Inc

Mad Scientist at Work

Posts: 4,307

  • Send private message

40

Thursday, August 3rd 2006, 10:28pm

Canada isn't too fond of the treaty, especially in light of so many nations using puppet state loopholes or otherwise avoiding the intent of the treaty. It's also felt that Canada was somewhat forced into being a signatory due to their status as a GB commonwealth. While Canada won't overtly break the treaty by laying down some 60k megaships, nor will we shed a tear at it's impending downfall.